A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Saturday, 29 June 2013

I am grateful to Father John Fleming, SPUC's bioethics adviser, for his contribution to my blog today. Fr Fleming provides the historical background/explanation as to how the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia continues to reject legislation aimed at the recognition of same sex relationships as a marriage relationship.

Fr Fleming writes:

Prior to 1961 the states and territories administered marriage laws which could vary from state to state. The Marriage Act 1961 brought marriage law in Australia under the exclusive supervision of the Commonwealth Government.

The Marriage Act did not define marriage but provided in section 46 that a marriage celebrant had to state that “marriage according to the law of Australia is the union between a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life”. Responding to the contemporary agitation for the legal recognition of same sex marriage, the Howard Government in 2004 had the Marriage Act amended in two important ways.

1. Marriage was defined in section 5(1). The amendment says this: “Marriage according to the law of Australia is the union between a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life.” That amendment was passed.
2. Section 88EA was also added to the Marriage Act. This provided that a union solemnised in a foreign country between (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman: must not be recognised in Australia.

So it was that in 2004 the situation vis a vis so-called “same sex marriage” was legally settled. Undeterred, in 2012 the same sex marriage lobby in the Commonwealth Parliament sought to have the amendments passed in 2004 overturned. On 19 September 2012, a bill introduced by Labor MP Stephen Jones aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage was debated and clearly defeated 42 to 98 votes.

If such a full frontal attack on the 2004 amendments was politically unattainable at the present moment, same sex marriage promoters then sought to attack only the second of the amendments which provided that such “marriages” solemnised in foreign countries would not and could not be recognised in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Accordingly Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced new legislation into the Senate (the upper house). The Bill was titled Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex couples) Bill 2013 and, if passed, would have successfully repealed the second of the two 2004 amendments. The strategy was to suggest that Australia could at least be "fair" and recognise all of the marriages solemnised legally in foreign jurisdictions.

On the 20th June 2013, the Liberal/National Coalition Parties together with several ALP (Australian Labor Party) Senators rejected the Bill at the second reading Stage, 44-28.

It would appear to be unlikely that there will be changes to Australian law favourable to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the next five to six years at least. With the almost certain advent of a conservative (ie Liberal/National Coalition) government in September 2013, such a change is very unlikely.

Australia owes former Prime Minister John Howard, the government, and the Parliament of 2004 a major debt of gratitude. Its pre-emptive strike in 2004, introducing pro-marriage amendments to the Marriage Act, has created a bulwark against moves which would have the effect of redefining the natural institution of marriage to include homosexual partnerships, a move which if successful, is contemptuous of the needs of children, and might well have a significant negative impact on the freedoms of the citizens to act according to his or her religious beliefs and to openly dissent from the recognition of such partnerships, especially in schools, hospitals, universities and the like.

Friday, 28 June 2013

I heard this morning from Margaret Cuthill, who runs ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline), an organization which offers help for women, men and families to restore their lives and relationships after an abortion experience. It is committed to exposing the truth of abortion’s tragedy in our community that women deserve better than abortion. It's funded by the SPUC Education and Research Trust.

Margaret was forwarding to me a message she had received from David Joseph McAteer who wrote to her as follows:

"Hello, I'm DJ Mc Ateer, I'm a learning disability nurse. I also compose songs. I was wondering how I could help give a voice to the unborn, so I wrote a song from their perspective. I then got my wee boy to sing it and made a prolife video. I think it is an effective tool in changing peoples mind sets. Please feel free to share this. I have had so much positive feedback about the song already. Many thanks DJ McAteer PS If it saves even one baby, it'll be worth it!"

I repeat David's kind invitation: Please feel free to share this. Let's help David and Jude and their beautiful song to save many babies' lives and to save their mums from the tragedy of an abortion.

SPUC has responded to today's announcement by Professor Dame Sally Davies, the government's chief medical officer, that the government intends to bring forth draft regulations to allow the abnormal creation of human embryos in order to address mitochondrial diseases. In a statement, Dame Sally described the research as "life-saving treatment".

In fact, the vast majority of embryonic children created in the laboratory are killed because they do not meet the 'quality control' requirements dictated by scientists involved in such increasingly macabre experiments. Also, over the past 20 years, proponents of human embryo experimentation have repeatedly claimed that such research offered the promise - and perhaps the only hope - of finding treatments for serious diseases. The public has been repeatedly misled. It is the biotech industry's excuse to create a genetically manipulated baby.

Thursday, 27 June 2013

“Keep sex out of science lessons” was the key message from a demonstration of parents outside Arnhem Wharf Primary school in east London, organised by Tower Hamlets Parents' Action Group – SRE, and supported by SPUC Safe at School.

80 parents (pictured - click photo for high resolution) gathered outside the school between 2-3pm yesterday at exactly the time when Year 6 children inside the school were being shown sexually-explicit images in a science lesson from which their parents were unable to withdraw them.

Following the demonstration Tower Hamlets Council issued the following statement:

"All primary schools are required by law to teach every child the scientific aspects of human reproduction; which includes naming the body parts and reproduction.

"We would like to reassure parents the subject is taught with sensitivity, according to guidelines and its content is constantly reviewed. At Arnhem Wharf Primary School it is taught to pupils from Year 5 – those aged at least nine – not children aged five, as some parents had been led to believe.

"There is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates how useful young people find such education and Ofsted recently warned that a lack of high-quality, age-appropriate sex and relationships education (SRE) may leave children vulnerable to inappropriate sexual behaviours and sexual exploitation.

"Our schools are aware that this is a sensitive subject and they consult with parents regularly, providing copies of the teaching material in advance. The vast majority of parents fully welcome the teaching of SRE and recognise the vital role it plays in their child’s education. For example, only three of the 120 children in Years 5 and 6 at Arnhem Wharf have been withdrawn by their parents from the non-statutory elements of SRE. We would urge anyone with concerns to hold a constructive meeting with their headteacher."

Commenting on the statement Antonia Tully of Safe at School told the media today:

"Tower Hamlets Council have got this wrong. There is nothing in the primary National Curriculum for Science which mandates schools to teach children at Key Stages 1 and 2 about sexual organs and sexual intercourse in humans. Teachers are interpreting the curriculum to mean this.

Many parents in Tower Hamlets have read the national curriculum for themselves and they are quite clear about this.

The new draft National Curriculum was published earlier this year. There were some important changes to the science curriculum at Key Stage 1. In the new draft curriculum, non-statutory notes and guidance at Key Stage 1 contains a list of body parts children need to learn. This list does not include the sex organs. The notes also indicate that sexual intercourse is not to be covered at this stage.

These significant amendments to the primary science curriculum constitute a response from Department of Education to the growing concern among parents, like those in Tower Hamlets, that the primary science curriculum is taking away their right to protect their children from sex education.

The Tower Hamlet Parents' Action Group never suggested that children as young as five were receiving sexually-explicit science lessons. The child at the centre of the controversy which prompted the demonstration is Anisah Alam who is in Year 6.

I challenge Tower Hamlets Council to produce the 'wealth of information that demonstrates how useful young people find such education'. Our research shows quite the opposite. The Council may wish to look at Wiggins M, Bonell C et al., 'Health outcomes of youth development programme in England, prospective matched comparison study.' (BMJ 2009; 339:b2534). This landmark study showed that delivering intensive sex education to young teenagers resulted in 3.5 times as many girls getting pregnant than in the control group. This sort of study does not suggest that teaching children in primary school about sex will result in delayed sexual activity.

I would also like to point out to Tower Hamlets Council that over 10,000 local people, mainly parents, signed a petition last year objecting strongly to the presence of the sexually-explicit teaching programme, the Christopher Winter Project, in Tower Hamlets Schools. This is the resource that was being used on the afternoon of 26 June in Arnhem Wharf Primary School.

The continuing complaint of parents in the borough is that they are unable to have 'a constructive meeting with their headteacher'. One headteacher admitted to parents that she knew she didn't have to teach sex in science lessons, but that she wanted to.

There is total confusion surrounding the National Curriculum for science at Key Stages 1 and 2. The Government needs to issue an urgent statement to Local Authorities about exactly what must be taught."

Also pictured are this summer's SPUC interns who attended and assisted at the protest:

Double standards at UK's advertising industry watchdog
The UK's advertising watchdog has been accused on double-standards as it conducts an investigation into a newspaper advertisement about the government's bill on same-sex marriage. SPUC, which produced the advertisement, said the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was protecting election advertising by politicians but censoring non-election advertising about bills proposed by politicians. SPUC's advertisement warned that "gay relationships will be promoted in schools" if the Government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill becomes law. [SPUC, 26 June]

National petition opposing school lessons in pornography
SPUC has launched a petition to protect school children from the latest anti-life idea – pornography lessons in the classroom. Porn lessons are being promoted by the Sex Education Forum (SEF). These lessons are not about how to avoid pornography, they are about dangling porn in front of young school pupils and encouraging them to embrace it in their lives. [SPUC. 25 June] Read more and act now

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

The UK's advertising watchdog has been accused of double-standards as it conducts an investigation into a newspaper advertisement about the government's bill on same-sex marriage.

SPUC, which produced the advertisement, said the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was protecting election advertising by politicians but censoring non-election advertising about bills proposed by politicians. SPUC made the accusation in a reply to the ASA sent today (see correspondence below), further to its response to the ASA of 21 June, in which SPUC accused the ASA of political censorship.

SPUC's advertisement warned that "gay relationships will be promoted in schools" if the Government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill becomes law. The ASA launched its investigation after a complaint alleged that the statement was "misleading". The ASA has demanded that SPUC substantiate its claim.

The ASA replied on 24 June to SPUC's response of 21 June as follows:

Dear Mr Smeaton

Thank you for responding to the complaint. The next stage of the investigation is for me to draft a recommendation which will be circulated to SPUC and the complainant for any comments before the case is presented to the ASA Council.

I note that the ASA Code states that “for reasons of freedom of speech, [you] do not have a remit over non-broadcast ads where the purpose of the ad is to persuade voters in a local, national or international election or referendum” but that said, you apparently consider that advertisements concerning proposed legislation are not a matter for free speech. So far as the ASA is concerned politicians can speak freely to the people but the people cannot speak freely to politicians. You say “ads for causes or ideas do fall within our remit”. Our advertisement was not for a “cause or idea” (whatever is meant by that); it was about proposed legislation. If organisations cannot publish advertisements concerning the impact of proposed legislation without the ASA demanding in effect that they are objectively justifiable then that truly is a fetter on free speech. The right to comment on the legislative process is fundamental to democracy. It is absolutely ridiculous that at the behest of a single complainant and in respect of proposed and not even finalised legislation, the ASA is going to be arbiter of what is and what is not misleading. Who is the ASA to gainsay the impact of proposed legislation? As I made clear in my email of 21 June 2013 the overwhelming feeling is that the ASA does not fully appreciate the ramifications of what it is doing.

You thank me for my patience. I have no patience on this matter I am afraid . You took a month to bring your complaint, then chivvied us for a response within 14 days and demurred when we took 21 days. Now that the matter is back with you speak airily of being “in touch again in due course”. If you impose arbitrary deadlines then at least have the courtesy to deal with matters with the same dispatch you demand of others.

Monday, 24 June 2013

Write to the French Embassy in London to demand the release of Nicolas
French pro-life/pro-family colleagues have contacted SPUC and asked us to highlight the fate of Nicolas Bernard-Buss, a young protester against same-sex marriage, who has been sentenced to two months in prison for the alleged crime of "rebellion" and other questionable offences. His case seems to be one of the worst of a large number of similar cases of police persecution directed against the hundreds of thousands of French people who have protested in recent months against same-sex marriage. Please contact the French Embassy in London to demand his release and the end of police persecution of protesters against same-sex marriage: His Excellency Bernard Emié, Ambassador, French Embassy in the United Kingdom, 58 Knightsbridge, London, SW1X 7JT Tel: 020 7073 1000 Email: presse.londres-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr [John Smeaton, 22 June]

Tower Hamlets parents protest about abuse of science National Curriculum
Parents in Tower Hamlets will be taking to the street to protest about children being taught about sex in science lessons, which they claim is an abuse of the National Curriculum. While children at Arnhem Wharf Primary School, E14 3RP, are having a statutory science lesson on the afternoon of 26 June, parents from around the borough will be staging a protest outside the school against the content of the lesson taking place inside. Safe at School is supporting the protest which has been organised by the Tower Hamlets Parents Action Group - SRE. [SPUC, 22 June]

Advertising watchdog accused of political censorship
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been accused of political censorshop for launching a spurious investigation into an advertisement against same-sex marriage. The ASA launched the formal investigation after it received one complaint against a newspaper advertisement placed by the SPUC. The advertisement warned that "gay relationships will be promoted in schools" if the Government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill becomes law. The complaint alleged that the statement was "misleading". The ASA has demanded that SPUC substantiate its claim. SPUC has today replied to the ASA with a robust letter accusing the ASA of "trespassing on freedom of expression in the political field". [SPUC, 21 June]

Help us stop science lessons being used to teach sex to primary school children
SPUC's Safe at School campaign has campaigned vigorously against the abuse of the National Curriculum for science at Key Stages 1 and 2. Primary schools around the country have been teaching children about sex in compulsory science lessons from which their parents cannot withdraw them. This is a blatant attack on parents’ rights to protect their children from sex lessons they consider inappropriate. [John Smeaton, 20 June] Action points:

Parents of primary school children should ask to see the lesson plans for science classes to find out if sex is being taught.

Parents should contact Safe at School straight away if their child’s primary school is abusing the national curriculum.

Order copies of the latest edition of SPUC's campaign bulletin on sex and relationships education - by email to orders@spuc.org.uk or by telephoning 020 7091 7091.

Saturday, 22 June 2013

French pro-life/pro-family colleagues have contacted SPUC and asked us to highlight the fate of Nicolas Bernard-Buss (pictured), a young protester against same-sex marriage, who has been sentenced to two months in prison for the alleged crime of "rebellion" and other questionable offences. His case seems to be one of the worst of a large number of similar cases of police persecution directed against the hundreds of thousands of French people who have protested in recent months against same-sex marriage. Here are some links with further information:

Parents in Tower Hamlets will be taking to the street to protest about children being taught about sex in science lessons, which they claim is an abuse of the National Curriculum.

While children at Arnhem Wharf Primary School, E14 3RP, are having a statutory science lesson on the afternoon of 26 June, parents from around the borough will be staging a protest outside the school against the content of the lesson taking place inside.

The parents are angry because the inclusion of the word "reproduction" in the science curriculum is being seen as a green light by teachers to transfer explicit teaching about sex to science lessons. There is nothing in the primary science curriculum at Key Stages 1 and 2 which mandates teachers to teach children about sexual matters.

"Parents at Arnhem Wharf, and other primary schools, are being denied their legal right to protect their children from sex education which is unacceptable to them. Teaching children about sex in science lessons is effectively compulsory sex education by the back door. The Department of Education needs to wake up to what's going on."

The ASA launched the formal investigation after it received one complaint against a newspaper advertisement placed by SPUC. The advertisement warned that "gay relationships will be promoted in schools" if the Government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill becomes law. The complaint alleged that the statement was "misleading". The ASA has demanded that SPUC substantiate its claim.

"Is it really the case that the ASA is going to appoint itself as the arbiter of the meaning of forthcoming legislation and ban advertisements that are not consistent with its view?"

"Most would consider that such political debate, whether or not manifested in advertisements, is none of the ASA’s business."

"[SPUC is] not reassured as to the ASA’s impartiality given that its chairman is Chris Smith, the peer and former Labour MP and Vice President of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality ... If the ASA’s intention is to police political advertising then common sense dictates that it cannot have a politician running the organisation."

"[T]he ASA has repeatedly alleged that advertisements that oppose gay marriage are “offensive” or, in any event, demanded of publishers that they show that they are not."

"[T]he ASA is politically compromised and simply has no right or authority to become involved in matters of political debate."

"[I]f a non-statutory, self-regulating body such as the ASA intends to trespass on freedom of expression in the political field then this is a development that would need to be reviewed by the courts at the earliest opportunity."

"[I]n consequence of the bill, schools will also need to promote same-sex marriage. This does not mean that individual teachers will have to extol its use but they would have to promote its existence."

Thursday, 20 June 2013

SPUC is committed to opposing explicit and provocative sex education. We believe that graphic lessons on sex in school are inciting young children to become sexually active in their teens or even before. Illegal, underage sexual activity leads to teenage pregnancies, rising rates of sexually-transmitted diseases and the tragedy of teenage abortions.

The new draft National Curriculum for science at Key Stages 1 and 2 has made clear that young children should not be given information about sex in science lessons.

SPUC's Safe at School campaign has campaigned vigorously against the abuse of the National Curriculum for science at Key Stages 1 and 2. Primary schools around the country have been teaching children about sex in compulsory science lessons from which their parents cannot withdraw them. This is a blatant attack on parents’ rights to protect their children from sex lessons they consider inappropriate.

The draft National Curriculum for primary science at Key stage 1, includes “Notes and guidance” which state that:

the parts of the human body which children aged 5-7 should be able to identify do not include the sexual organs

children “should not be expected to understand how reproduction occurs”.

The “Notes and guidance” are labelled as non-statutory, which means a teacher could ignore them. The draft curriculum for science at Key Stage 2 remains very vague. Children must be taught to describe the “life processes of reproduction in some animals and plants”. Some teachers are interpreting this to mean that sexual must be taught. This is an abuse of the national curriculum.

Action points:

Parents of primary school children should ask to see the lesson plans for science classes to find out if sex is being taught.

Parents should contact Safe at School straight away if their child’s primary school is abusing the national curriculum.

Order copies of the latest edition of SPUC's campaign bulletin on sex and relationships education - by email to orders@spuc.org.uk or by telephoning 020 7091 7091.

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

Central London abortion centre to stop performing abortions
The central London centre of the British Pregnancy Advisory Services (BPAS) is to stop performing abortions there. The abortions will now be performed at its recently-opened centre in Stratford, east London. Daniel Blackman, a research and education officer of SPUC and a member of the 40 Days for Life London organising team from 2010 to 2012, said: "The news that BPAS will no longer be performing chemical abortions at its Bedford Square facility is to be welcomed. Special mention should be made of 40 Days for Life, Helpers of God’s Precious Infants, and the Good Counsel Network, who have held prayer vigils outside the BPAS facility for a number of years. However, like the head of Hydra, BPAS opened a new facility in Stratford, East London in 2011. SPUC launched a vigorous campaign of opposition, working closely with local residents and pro-life groups. Sadly, BPAS Stratford is now open six days a week, with long opening hours, carrying out chemical and surgical abortions, ie, more abortion procedures than were offered at Bedford Square. It is situated on the ground floor of a residential block housing residents with complex needs, in an area with one of the highest abortions rates in the country. SPUC, together with others who want to offer protection for unborn children and their parents, will continue its campaign against BPAS." [Catholic Herald, 18 June]

Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive, says Lord Steel, author of 1967 Act
Lord (David) Steel, the author of the 1967 Abortion Act, has criticised the practice of repeat abortions in Britain. He said: "It is odd that so many women present for repeat abortions, some more than twice, which does suggest they are treating abortion as contraception. This was never the purpose of the 1967 reform." Josephine Quintavalle of the Pro-Life Alliance responded to Lord Steel's comments, saying: ‘David Steel needs to face the reality of the provision of abortion in this country, that it is not just being provided for women in dramatic need but is available on demand. It was verging on the ingenuous of him to imagine when he brought forward his legislation in 1967 that abortion wouldn’t end up being available on demand. The trouble is that many people think there is nothing wrong with repeat abortions. They say: abortion is either right or wrong, so if you can have one you should be able to have as many as you can ask for." [Mail, 19 June]

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts* as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

SPUC has been sent a copy of the Stonewall presentation given at Strawberry Hill which was used as the basis for the workshop. The presentation goes beyond the subject of homophobic bullying. It:

attacks Christian teachers who have objections to homosexuality

advocates the inclusion of homosexual equality into curricula

attacks Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which (before being repealed in 2003) prevented the promotion of homosexuality in any state-maintained school

"Ensure that information on sexual orientation is collected at Registration"

"To improve confidence in declaring sexuality"

"To develop information for students to improve their confidence to declare [their sexuality]"

"Ensure support for transgender staff and students"

Many of the members of the college's board of governors are nominated by the Catholic Education Service (CES). Mgr Marcus Stock, General Secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, recently reminded schools, in a document published on behalf of the CES and the Bishops' Conference, that Catholic schools have a duty of:

"integrating Gospel values and the teachings of the Catholic Church into every aspect of learning, teaching and the totality of school life."

However, considering that it is the CES who is recommending to Catholic schools that they 'tackle homophobic bullying', I wonder if it is staff there who are also responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the Stonewall presentation at Strawberry Hill and for its homosexual equality objectives. After all, the CES's deputy director is Greg Pope, a former Member of Parliament whose anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record includes support for homosexual civil partnerships and allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. A statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith leaves the grave immorality of such legislation beyond any doubt:

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."

It would seem that this might be a case of the bureaucats who work for the bishops letting the the bishops down.

However, on a very positive note, how timely that Archbishop Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is visiting Scotland this week to deliver a strong message upholding parents as the primary educators of their children. In the prestigious "Cardinal Winning Lecture" at the University of Glasgow he will say:

"It is opportune at this present moment, amidst the rapidly changing state of society, of higher education generally and also of the Church, to reflect on the nature and distinctiveness of Catholic Education and on the challenges it both faces and also presents ... "

and he says:

"the State has the duty and responsibility to facilitate the wishes of Catholic parents to educate their children according to their desire to pass on their faith to their children."

* Why is the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

Congratulations to Alan Hopes, Catholic bishop-elect of East Anglia
John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, has congratulated Alan Hopes, currently auxiliary bishop of the Catholic archdiocese of Westminster, upon his appointment as bishop-elect of East Anglia. Bishop Hopes has given public witness to the sanctity of human life, of marriage and of the family, in particular supporting vigils outside abortion centres. In a sermon Bishop Hopes gave in Westminster cathedral last November, he prayed "that those who are in power will seek to uphold the dignity of human life until the tragedy of abortion and assisted killing is no more; and to support and strengthen the family and the values of family life." [John Smeaton, 11 January]

Other stories:

Abortion

U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke discusses the relationship between contraception and the culture of abortion. [YouTube, 11 June]

Tuesday, 11 June 2013

I wish to congratulate Alan Hopes, currently auxiliary bishop of the Catholic archdiocese of Westminster, upon his appointment as bishop-elect of East Anglia. Bishop Hopes has given public witness to the sanctity of human life, of marriage and of the family, in particular supporting vigils outside abortion centres - see below a list of my blogposts. In particular, I recall the sermon he gave in Westminster cathedral last November, when he said:

"How marred is our own world by such assaults on the dignity of human life – from the easy discarding of innocent lives in the tragedy of abortion, to the easy discarding of life as it nears its completion in the so called “right to die” and “mercy killing”."
...
"How marred too, is our world by the assaults on the dignity and the sacred nature of marriage and family life. From the beginning God shows us that the family is a sacred unity given by him to provide stability for the human race ... Today’s ideas of living with one another and entering into the commitment of marriage, the acceptance of unfaithfulness and sexual immorality, the provision in law of pre-nuptial agreements which is symptomatic of a general disregard for marriage, the proposed marriage of same sex couples – none of these can replace the ideal of the family – mother, father children - which God intends should provide stability for society as a whole.
...
"Let us pray fervently, today, before the image of Our Lady of Czestochowa that those who are in power will seek to uphold the dignity of human life until the tragedy of abortion and assisted killing is no more; and to support and strengthen the family and the values of family life."

Monday, 10 June 2013

The Glasgow based St Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society is resisting demands from the OSCR, the Scottish Charities Regulator, to abandon its long-held position that the best interests of adopted children are served by having them placed preferentially with a mother and father within the stable union of marriage.

The OSCR claims that Saint Margaret's position would have a
negative impact on cohabiting and same sex couples. Despite there being another
36 adoption agencies in Scotland, the regulator has deemed it important that
Saint Margaret's effectively disassociate itself from the Church or face
closure.

St Margaret’s Board Member, Brian McGuigan, has expressed the organisation’s determination to carry on: "fighting this at every available opportunity as Saint Margaret's origins and identity are inseparable from the Catholic Church and her values and moral teaching in respect to marriage and the family".

Strong support for their position came from Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, Arcbishop of Glasgow and administrator of the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, who has described St Margaret’s as "a treasure of the Church in Scotland" which can be sure that "the whole Church is united in support for its work".

Hundreds gathered in support of the charity at St Andrew’s Cathedral on Sunday. The charity is appealing to the Scottish Charities Appeal Tribunal and, if necessary, is prepared to take its case to the Court of Session.

Archbishop Tartaglia said:

"The whole church is united in support for [St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society's] work and we hope that common sense will prevail, and it will be allowed to continue to serve children in Scotland who need loving families.”

Friday, 7 June 2013

In February, Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's senior education manager and a respected bioethicist, gave a talk in Newcastle explaining why same-sex marriage will be bad for the protection of children, both born and unborn. You can listen to Anthony's talk on SPUC's YouTube channel. Anthony ended his talk with a plea:

"If you want to defend marriage, and if you want to defend the unborn, and you want to actually challenge an attempt in our laws to redefine man and woman (in effect), then please - please - stand up and be counted and listen to my colleagues (at SPUC) and see what you can do."

Back in February, Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's senior education manager and a respected bioethicist, gave a talk in Newcastle explaining why same-sex marriage will be bad for the protection of children, both born and unborn. You can listen to Anthony's talk by clicking on the video-box below or on SPUC's YouTube channel. Anthony ended his talk with a plea:

"If you want to defend marriage, and if you want to defend the unborn, and you want to actually challenge an attempt in our laws to redefine man and woman (in effect), then please - please - stand up and be counted and listen to my colleagues (at SPUC) and see what you can do."

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Campaign far from over in Lords to stop same-sex marriage
The campaign is far from over in the House of Lords to stop the government's same-sex marriage bill. SPUC was commenting after the House of Lords voted to allow the bill to receive a second reading by 390 votes to 148. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, commented: "A significant number of Lords who support same-sex marriage said that the bill does not have their unqualified support. Also, some Lords with objections to same-sex marriage did not vote against the bill this evening because of disputed parliamentary conventions restricting voting rights. Several Lords were wary of rejecting the bill at second reading because of fears that the government would subject the bill to the Parliament Act – overriding the Lords entirely and forcing the bill through without any scope for amending any aspects of it. These factors, plus the large number of Lords who voted against the bill, suggests strongly that the bill could be in trouble in the forthcoming parliamentary stages. We therefore call upon all those seeking to defend the child-centred true nature of marriage to increase their activity to stop the bill." [SPUC, 4 June]

People wishing to lobby Members of the House of Lords should contact SPUC on 020 7091 7091 or by email to political@spuc.org.uk

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

The House of Lords voted this evening to allow the government's same-sex marriage bill to receive a second reading by 390 votes to 148. However, the campaign is far from over to stop the bill.

As Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media this evening:

"A significant number of Lords who support same-sex marriage said that the bill does not have their unqualified support. Also, some Lords with objections to same-sex marriage did not vote against the bill this evening because of disputed parliamentary conventions restricting voting rights.

Several Lords were wary of rejecting the bill at second reading because of fears that the government would subject the bill to the Parliament Act – overriding the Lords entirely and forcing the bill through without any scope for amending any aspects of it.

These factors, plus the large number of Lords who voted against the bill, suggests strongly that the bill could be in trouble in the forthcoming parliamentary stages. We therefore call upon all those seeking to defend the child-centred true nature of marriage to increase their activity to stop the bill.

Redefining marriage in law as a genderless institution unconnected with child-bearing will strip marriage of its identity. Whatever the fate of the government's bill, we must continue to fight to preserve the protection real marriage gives to children, both born and unborn.”

For the sake of our children and our children's children, we must maintain our absolute opposition to same-sex marriage.

People wishing to lobby Members of the House of Lords should contact SPUC on 020 7091 7091 or by email to political@spuc.org.uk

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.